2015Do5048 A. Rape injury

(b) Rape;

(c) Violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act;

2015 Jeondo90 (Joint Attachment Orders)

A

Prosecutor and the Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Y. Law Firm National Assembly (National Assembly)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014No3353, 2014 Jeonno362 (Consolidated) Decided April 2, 2015

June 23, 2015

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Defendant case

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of all rape and injury resulting from rape among the facts charged in the instant case. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of rape and injury to rape, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. In addition, the lower court ordered the Defendant to disclose and notify the information about the Defendant for ten years only for the crime of rape and injury to rape, on the ground that “special circumstances not disclosing personal information” cannot be deemed to exist on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In addition, in light of the purport and record of the relevant legal provisions, the lower

B. As to the claim for attachment order

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to dismiss the defendant's assertion that the attachment order is improper, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

The argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or exceeded the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee is an assertion of unfair sentencing. However, in the interpretation of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be asserted as the ground of appeal that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence in finding the facts premised on the sentencing against the defendant's interests. Thus, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1952, Sept. 15, 2005).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 200

Justices Lee In-bok, Counsel for the appeal

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young